ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

Arizona Faculties Council Meeting Minutes

Date: Thursday, November 30, 2006
Place: Ventana Room, UA Student Union
Time Frame: 11:30 a.m.-12:45 p.m.

Present:
Marcus Ford, NAU, Arizona Faculties’ Council President (2006-2007) and NAU Senate Past President
Marsha Yowell, NAU Senate President
Bill Verdini, ASU at the Tempe campus Senate President-Elect
John Brock, President, ASU Polytechnic, Academic Assembly and Senate
Susan Mattson, ASU Downtown Campus Senate President
Wanda Howell, UA Chair of the Faculty
Robert Mitchell, UA Vice-Chair of the Faculty and Presiding Officer of the Senate
J.C. Mutchler, UA South Faculty Forum Past President
Bill Alexander, UA South Faculty Forum President
Maryn Boess, ABOR Grants Manager
Mark Denke, ABOR Assistant Executive Director for Academic and Student Affairs
Pam Bridgmon, UA Faculty Center Program Coordinator

The meeting came to order at 12:00 p.m. Members introduced themselves. Members discussed that, if the AFC Chair is unable to attend an ABOR meeting or Study Session, another AFC member should occupy that chair at the Board table.

Topic: UA’s Strategic Plan presentation
Today UA’s President Robert Shelton presented the UA’s Five-Year Strategic Plan 2008-2012 to ABOR just prior to this meeting. The Board of Regents critiqued the plan, calling it “long on vision” and asked for more data, measures and year-by-year goals with details of plans to reach those goals. The Board also wants more specific information about the sources of funding for certain aspects of the plan, as well as detailed strategic plans for key areas such as Information Technology and Human Resources, to name a few. AFC members agreed that there are several new Board members who are more number-oriented. Since the legislature’s deadline for the universities’ strategic plans is December 31^st, UA will have the opportunity to revise its plan, and ASU and NAU can benefit from today’s critique in completing their plans.

Topic: Tuition increase
Members discussed the presidents’ and the students’ proposals for tuition increase, and whether the AFC should issue some sort of statement of support for one of the recommendations. Members agreed the statement should be worded as “positive support for funding the universities.”

Points of Discussion: 

• Tuition is a faculty issue: financial support of the universities is important to all faculty. We should consider making a non-political statement from the AFC about the tuition proposals.
• The AFC should not remain silent about this issue—it is too important.
• Raising tuition is never anyone’s first choice. No one wants students to have to pay more.
• The statement could have a caveat that says AFC believes tuition increases would be tied directly to improved educational experiences.
• Increases in tuition guarantee increased financial aid because it is built into the formula, but the lack of state financial aid is a serious concern. AFC should make a comment about the lack of state-sponsored financial aid for Higher Education.
• Dennis Hoffman’s report, “Is Resident Undergraduate Instruction at Arizona State University As Nearly Free as Possible?” helps to clarify what is meant by, “as nearly free as possible,” which is to say that it is reasonable and in line with peer institutions. The report also delineates how the costs of higher education have risen dramatically.
• Some low-income students’ families actually experience an increase in income from the financial aid given for attending the university.
• People don’t really want “free” higher education. People don’t value “free.”
• California’s Constitution has the same language, “as nearly free as possible,” but the difference is that CA’s legislature believes in and practices adequately funding higher education.
• The Arizona’s legislature is somewhat constrained because about 80% of the budget is already mandated and they only have a small amount to allot.
• In the past, AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction and Regent Horne has voted against every proposal for tuition increase.
• ASU has promised full tuition/room/board for all Arizona resident children of families making less than $25K/year. This year there were 600 students who qualified. Next year ASU expects about 900. Funding for this promise comes from the tuition dollars that are earmarked for financial aid.
• Tuition increases hurt the middle class more than anyone.
• The Regents just allow that students can handle tuition increases by taking more loans, which will be offset by their salaries when they graduate. The reality though, is that students are experiencing increasingly high debt levels upon graduation and that burden is unreasonable.
• Question: Where is the money from tuition increases going? It is going toward debt service on buildings or toward faculty salaries and other things to improve educational experiences and student services?
• Question: Can the AFC members state that they truly represent the faculty view at their campuses? Not without actually surveying the faculty. Members can only speak for themselves as AFC members or, if there is a consensus, for the whole AFC.
• Some ASU campuses have had to cancel classes because of bare-bones budgets with no faculty to teach them and no money to hire faculty. At this point, a tuition increase may mean mere survival for such units.
• The AFC statement should say it supports the students’ recommendation in principle, but in reality it supports the President’s recommendation, because AFC supports funding for higher education.
• UA’s proposed IT/Library Fee increase is receiving split support from the students. The Library delineated how the increased funds would be used and the students support it, but the IT department didn’t offer such detail and the students are rejecting the IT increase.
• Everyone agrees that the state’s funding of higher education is abysmal. The students are not naive. Their recommendation is designed to send a message to the legislature. They don’t really expect it to pass.
• The Regents could go either way. Some Regents are seriously opposed to any tuition increase. They have a difficult decision to make.
• A statement from the AFC won’t tip the balance either way, but it’s still important that the AFC go on the record about this issue.
• Some members felt ambivalent or neutral about issuing a support statement for either proposal because they feel it is the state’s responsibility to fund the universities adequately. It’s just wrong to keep increasing tuition.

AFC President Ford asked for a show of hands about which recommendation the AFC’s statement should endorse. Six were in favor of the presidents’ and three favored the students’ recommendation. R. Mitchell reminded AFC President Ford that he needs to alert Regent President Bulla if he wishes to be recognized at some point this afternoon in order to make a statement about tuition.

Recommendation:
Members agreed the language of an AFC statement about tuition increases should include the following points:

1)      that the Arizona Faculties’ Council certainly supports the students’ message to the Arizona legislature;

2)      that historically, increased funding for higher education hasn’t happened; and

3)   that the Arizona Faculties’ Council supports the Presidents’ recommendation to support
higher education.

Topic: Academic Bill of Rights:
AFC President Ford told members that Megan Fitzgerald, representing the national Free Exchange on Campus Coalition will attend tomorrow’s AFC breakfast with the Provosts. The Coalition is a group that has been tracking and opposing David Horowitz’ “Academic Bill of Rights” as it has been introduced in about twenty states, although passed in none of them to date. The Pennsylvania Legislature convened a fact-finding committee to determine whether political bias exists in the classroom. None was found and the bill failed. This mis-named “bill of rights” would actually limit the rights and free speech of faculty. A similar document, Temple University’s “Student Bill of Rights,” also exists. There may be a strategy session about this issue. Last year, the Arizona universities’ lobbyists preferred to handle this issue discreetly with individual legislators. The Coalition feels that a better approach is to go public with media attention by enlisting the support of other institutions of higher education, students and parents, and the support of the public, including public school faculties, students and parents. This approach could have the effect of killing the bill with finality.

Points of Discussion: 

• It is important to hear what is happening on this issue nationally.
• Last year’s syllabus policy wasn’t an easy sell on several campuses. Faculty strongly resisted doing anything, but it was successful. The policy is mainly about full disclosure, but faculty are not required to disclose.
• Regent Calderon told the UA’s Association of Women Faculty that he thought what the syllabus policy of last year was a mistake and that he opposed any concessions to this proposed bill of rights. He and only one other Regent opposed the syllabus policy last year. UA’s Association of Women Faculty may come to the UA Faculty Senate to try to get it revoked.
• If this is a national trend we are fighting, it might be helpful to join forces with others and align with other schools.
• If such a bill were to take hold in the universities, however, it could surely trickle down to the high schools and below.

Topic: PAC-10 Faculty Leadership Group
R. Mitchell explained that the PAC-10 faculty leadership group is still attempting to organize itself. Last spring UA faculty leaders received an invitation to an initial meeting hosted at University of Washington in Seattle. Secretary Jenkins attended that meeting for the UA. A second meeting has been proposed for this spring, and UA has offered to host it. The timing of such a meeting might be such that it would coincide with the March ABOR/AFC meeting. Would the AFC entertain inviting these faculty leaders to one of its functions?

Points of Discussion: 

• Why is it the PAC-10? Is it athletically oriented? No—it’s more of a regional designation, for the purposes of creating consortiums for information technologies or libraries. UA belongs to the COIA (Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, and that group is handling faculty concerns about ICA.
• ASU is a PAC-10 school but did not receive any invitation to this PAC-10 faculty leadership meeting. It isn’t clear where the initial list of invitees came from, but possibly from the COIA group.
• If it’s regional, we should invite more institutions to join.
• What is the purpose of the group? It is trying to be constructive about forming consortiums or collaborations regarding information technologies or libraries, and to inform the System.
• Maybe we should start a national organization of faculty leaders.

Recommendation:
The AFC does not object to inviting the PAC-10 group to an AFC meeting, should it coincide with its meeting in Tucson.

This meeting concluded at 12:50 p.m.

Submitted by Pam Bridgmon
Program Coordinator – UA Faculty Center

 BACK